Alfred Marshall on @johnmcdonnellMP socialism with an iPad

Image

@GreenpeaceNZ @RusselNorman confuse thuggery with peaceful protest against oil exploration

Greenpeace thugs today climbed aboard a Government science ship that will search for oil. Three Greenpeace activists have locked themselves to the mast with others secured to various areas on deck. They unfurled a banner reading: “Climb it Change” and intend to stay as long as possible.

https://twitter.com/gen_tweets1/status/668891794726256640

Greenpeace are keen to pass laws to save the environment but they’re more than happy to break laws they disagree with. I wonder if they extend that same courtesy to others they regard as less enlightened than them?

Greenpeace expects others to obey the laws for which Greenpeace lobbied. Why does Greenpeace think they can break laws that others secured through lawful, peaceful democratic action? Is some peaceful democratic action more equal than others? Why does Greenpeace think their vote counts more than mine?

The Greenpeace vandals who trespassed at Parliament a few months ago by climbing up to put signs down showed a flagrant disregard of the ample possible options for peaceful protest right outside. In their favour, they showed some sort of fidelity to law by later pleading guilty in court. That showed an acknowledgement that what they did was a criminal offence.

John Rawls makes the point that the purpose of civil disobedience is not to impose your will upon others but through your protest to implore them to reconsider their position and change the law or policy you are disputing.

Rawls argues that civil disobedience is never covert or secretive; it is only ever committed in public, openly, and with fair notice to legal authorities. Openness and publicity, even at the cost of having one’s protest frustrated, offers ways for the protesters to show their willingness to deal fairly with authorities. Rawls argues:

  • for a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law being done (usually) with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government;
  • that appeals to the sense of justice of the majority;
  • which may be direct or indirect;
  • within the bounds of fidelity to the law;
  • whose protesters are willing to accept punishment; and
  • although civil disobedience involves breaking the law, it is for moral rather than selfish reasons; the willingness to accept arrest is proof of the integrity of the act.

Rawls argues, and too many forget, that civil disobedience and dissent more generally contribute to the democratic exchange of ideas by forcing the dominant opinion to defend their views.

https://twitter.com/nzheraldvideo/status/668968510060564480

Legitimate non-violent direct action are publicity stunts to gain attention and provoke debate within the democratic framework, where we resolve our differences by trying to persuade each other and elections.

The civil disobedient is attempting to appeal to the “sense of justice” of the majority and a willingness to accept arrest is proof of the integrity of the act says Rawls:

…any interference with the civil liberties of others tends to obscure the civilly disobedient quality of one’s act.

Rawls argues that the use or threat of violence is incompatible with a reasoned appeal to fellow citizens to move them to change a law. The actions are not a means of coercing or frightening others into conforming to one’s wishes. That is a breach of the principles of a just society.

Too many acts of non-violent direct action aim to impose their will on others rather than peaceful protests designed to bring about democratic change in the laws or policies. That ‘might does not make right’ is fundamental to democracy and the rule of law. As United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said

The virtue of a democratic system [with a constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech] is that it readily enables the people, over time, to be persuaded that what they took for granted is not so and to change their laws accordingly.

John Rawls’ view that fidelity to law and democratic change through trying to persuade each other is at the heart of civil disobedience reflects the difference between the liberal and the left-wing on democracy and social change as Jonathan Chait observed:

Liberals treat political rights as sacrosanct. The left treats social and economic justice as sacrosanct. The liberal vision of political rights requires being neutral about substance. To the left, this neutrality is a mere guise for maintaining existing privilege; debates about “rights” can only be resolved by defining which side represents the privileged class and which side represents the oppressed… Liberals believe that social justice can be advanced without giving up democratic rights and norms. The ends of social justice do not justify any and all means.

If you want to reform the world, do what we ordinary people have to do: change your vote, write to an MP, protest, donate to or even join a political party, or run for parliament.

https://twitter.com/siana_tweets/status/668927311928954880

The great strength of democracy is a small group of concerned and thoughtful citizens can band together and change things by mounting single issue campaigns or joining a political party and running for office and winning elections or influencing who wins.

Yesterday’s majority of the vote sooner or later and often sooner than they expect will break off into different minorities on the next big issue of the day. These newly formed minorities will use that same ability to band together as a minority to block vote to protect what they think is important and advance agendas they think are to be wider benefit despite the opinion of the current majority to the contrary. All reforms start as a minority viewpoint.

Indeed, it is a strength of democracy – small groups of concerned citizens banding together – is what is holding up legislating in many areas. It is not that minorities are powerless and individuals are voiceless. It is exactly the opposite.

Nothing stirs up the impassioned (and most other people as well) more than depriving them of their right to support or oppose what is important to them through political campaigns and at an election. The losing side, we all end up on the losing side at one time or another, are much more likely to accept an outcome if they had their say and simply lost the vote at the election or in Parliament.

Greenpeace should show fidelity to democracy by obeying the laws supported by others when they were in the majority. Yes, Greenpeace is in despair over oil exploration. Others rejoice in it but that clash of strong opinions is the nature of any important controversy.

Greenpeace wants to do is rob the winners of their honest democratic victory over the balance between oil exploration and other energy options. Greenpeace are also robbing themselves of a fair defeat.

A fair defeat flows from laws and policies secured through normal democratic means knowing that one day you may be in a majority. Only by respecting the will of the majority when you are in the minority do you have any right to expect future minorities to respect your honest democratic victories as the majority of some future day. Democratic majorities of patched together through give-and-take and the reality that even the most important policies may be reversed in the future.

Right now, the thuggery of Greenpeace is poisoning the democratic process. Greenpeace should respect the political process because democracy alone can produce compromises satisfying a sufficient mass of the electorate on deeply felt issues so as to not distort the remainder of the democratic process. Greenpeace owes New Zealand democracy better than what it is doing today

Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan: The Calculus of Consent After 25 Years

Why propaganda?

Deirdre McCloskey on Piketty, the Bourgeoisie Deal, the Bolshevik Deal, and the Bridal Deal

.

One in five support a military coup to stop Boris Johnson becoming prime minister

Do the European welfare states free ride off American entrepreneurship and innovation?

image

Source: Daron Acemoglu A Scandinavian U.S. Would Be a Problem for the Global Economy – NYTimes.com.

Capitalism does this every day! What do @Oxfam and @Greenpeace do?

The Holy Roman Empire in 1789

Gordon Tullock and Collective Preferences and Democracy

John Stuart Mill on the role of error in finding truth

Image

The demise of the Green Book and the decline of racism in America

The Green Book was an indispensable survival guide to black Americans traveling in America in the Jim Crow Era if they wish to “sidestep humiliation (or worse) on the journeys”. As Richard Epstein noted when reflecting on the 50th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill:

Title II was passed when memories were still fresh of the many indignities that had been inflicted on African American citizens on a routine basis. It took little imagination to understand that something was deeply wrong with a nation in which it was difficult, if not impossible, for African American citizens to secure food, transportation, and lodging when traveling from place to place in large sections of the country. In some instances, no such facilities were available, and in other cases they were only available on limited and unequal terms.

The Green Guide lists the types of businesses by name and address in the southern states that were known to welcome black patrons.

The Green Book spoke in code about how to avoid “embarrassing situations”. This was code for “the violence and discrimination inflicted by bigots”. The diffusion of the car into the black middle class was a godsend to escape racism.

The founding publisher was a US postal worker who with typical entrepreneurial flair initially published the Green Book from his apartment in Virginia starting in the late 1930s. To find businesses that welcomed black patrons, Victor Green tapped into his network of fellow mailmen. His book covered the entire 50 states, parts of Canada and even extended to Europe in later editions.

The Green Book stopped publishing a mere two years after the passage of a major civil rights bill in 1964 and the voting rights bill of 1965. These two bills strengthened voter rights and outlawed discrimination by businesses and employers.


By 1966, just two years after the passage of the civil rights bill, the market collapsed for information on businesses that welcomed black patrons in America. This was because so many businesses now welcome black patronage in every part of the southern states and elsewhere in America that a special booklet no longer had buyers. At the height of its popularity, the Green Book sold 15,000 copies per year.


Yes, there were law reforms but the closing of the Green Book is a sign of surprisingly rapid social change given the dogged resistance of the Democratic Party led southern states to all previous attempts at racial integration.

As an example of this tenacious resistance to civil rights legislation, Texas divided itself into 252 counties and delegated considerable responsibility to them. Local sheriffs in southern states would campaign on slogans such as “the man who can take care of situations that may arise”.

Control of the police and local courts was central to the enforcement of racial segregation in the southern states of America. This was backed up by the monopoly that the Democratic Party had over local and state offices.

To register to vote in Texas, for example, a black voter had to register with the local voter registration board in one of the 252 counties. Assuming you could find a member – they came in late, took long lunches and went home early – they would fail the applicant on the literacy test or some other criteria.

The aggrieved black would be voter would then have to take is local voter registration board all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn that decision. The members of the local voter registration board would refuse to follow the orders of the US District Court orders. The criminal contempt citation would be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Once the criminal contempt citation is upheld by the Supreme Court, the voter registration board resigned so the litigation would have to start all over again against the new board members. This was because the state of Texas could not be named as a co-defendant under the 1957 civil rights law – the first past 100 years by Congress.

Such was the hostile legal environment, the lawlessness, the FBI had an eight part go to strategy in case a local sheriff arrested FBI agents in southern states when they are enforcing civil rights law. Black civil rights leaders in the USA were keen gun owners and owned a lot of them for home defence and they used them.

Plenty of school busing orders by courts were appealed for years and years and were resisted at every turn in both northern and southern states. One or two states closed their entire school systems and threatened to transfer the assets to private hands to prevent racial integration.

James Heckman was one of the first economist to note the rapid social change in the southern states of America over the course of the 60s. Heckman spent two years as a teenager in the late 1950s in racist Southern States of America and returned in 1963 and in 1970. His parents were received a delegation of neighbours upon their arrival to explain Southern ways.

There was organised segregation in 1963 when Heckman visited again as a college student. His 1963 visit with a college roommate from Nigeria was monitored by the local sheriff. In Birmingham, they stayed at the black YMCA. The people at the YMCA were frightened to death because Heckman and his Nigerian friend were breaking the local Jim Crow laws. Shops closed in New Orleans to avoid serving them.

In 1970, Heckman re-visited New Orleans as an academic, going back to the same places as in 1963. They were completely integrated, totally changed. This rapid social change fascinated him.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 broke the control of segregationists over their political and legal institutions. The racial segregation collapsed because it could no longer rely on Jim Crow laws and the private violence and boycotts through the White Citizens Councils which police turned a blind eye too when they were not actively involved.

Unlike the Ku Klux Klan, the White Citizens’ Councils met openly and was seen as “pursuing the agenda of the Klan with the demeanour of the Rotary Club” by “unleashing a wave of economic reprisals against anyone, Black or white, seen as a threat to the status quo”. In Mississippi, the State Sovereignty Commission funded the Citizens’ Councils.

The 1957 and, particular, the 1964 civil rights laws overthrew racial segregation because more Black Americans could vote in the Southern States in state and local elections. Politicians soon courted those votes and there was a political realignment and a social revolution. The lawlessness that back-up most of segregation quickly came to an end because its victims could now vote. Richard Epstein explains:

With Jim Crow in the South this set of insidious practices was not accomplished by explicit laws mandating racial segregation. Rather, those inflexible social and economic patterns were supported by four interlocking strategies. First, illicit control of the electoral franchise, which in turn translated into control of the police and the courts. Second, corrupt use over the infrastructure translated into an ability to deny water and electrical hook-ups to firms that did not toe the segregationist line. Third, private violence to which southern police forces turned a blind eye when they did not actively support it. Fourth, social ostracism to those who spoke up against the system. Sensible people either left, stayed away or remained silent.

LBJ was behind the first civil rights bill of the 20th century. This was the 1957 civil rights bill. LBJ’s astute understanding of public choice processes was central to how he crafted the 1957 bill.

Then Senator Johnson could see that his fellow Southern Democrats would not live with racial integration at the social level. But he knew from his dealings with the Southern Democrats that in their heart of hearts that they could not ultimately deny that people have a right to vote. LBJ knew that if Black Americans in the Southern States could secure the right to vote, all the other rights they sought would soon follow and would be protected by law. He was right.

The Voting Right Act had a huge impact on many southern states. For example, black voter registration rates in Mississippi increased from a mere 6.7 percent in 1965 to 59.8 percent in 1967, according to the US Commission for Civil Rights. For a state that’s historically around 40 percent black, this represented a massive shift in politics — a change that much of the predominantly white leadership at the time feared but would have to accept due to the Voting Rights Act.

Timur Kuran in “Sparks and Prairie Fires: A Theory of Unanticipated Political Revolutions,” suggested that political revolutions and large shifts in political and social opinion will catch us by surprise again and again because of people’s readiness to conceal their true political preferences proclivities under perceived social pressure.

Kuran begins with a simple, even mundane point: social pressures can make people say that they want and believe something that they really don’t want or believe…  The result of social pressures is to produce what Kuran calls “preference falsification,” a phenomenon that occurs when you make an inaccurate public statement about your actual preferences (or beliefs). Falsified preferences might be described more simply, of course, as lies; but they are a distinctive, and distinctly interesting, kind of lies, with particular social implications…  People joined organizations they abhorred, followed orders they considered nonsensical, cheered speakers they despised and ostracized dissidents they greatly admired.

Those ready to oppose racism or who were lukewarm about it, kept their opposition private until a coincidence of factors gave them the courage to bring their views into the open. In switching sides, they encouraged other hidden opponents to switch. Fear changes sides. Genuine supporters of the old older falsify their publically professed preferences, pretending that they support the new order. These are late-switchers. Do not trust them. These opportunists will just as easily switch back.

Plenty of people have had personal experiences of this in the 1980s and the 1990s when there was rapid change in social and political attitudes about racism, sexism and gay rights. A few people had to stand up for what was right and a surprisingly large number quickly joined their side.

Once Blacks in the southern states started voting for the local sheriff and judges and for state-wide officials, the local legal infrastructure helped the market work rather than frustrated it. As Richard Epstein noted when writing a freedom of association but his remarks equally apply to the market process:

The practice of freedom of association cannot survive in a society that has corrupt electoral institutions, corrupt provision of public services, corrupt use of public force, and unrestrained use of private violence. The hard question in these settings is to ask exactly what legal changes should be made. In one sense, the thought that some non-discrimination principle could gain hold through legislation seems laughable. Indeed, it was only because federal legislation could work, with much huffing and puffing, to override state legislation that the local monopoly was broken… The competitive market works well when supported by well-ordered public institutions.

The rapid demise of the Green Book is a testament to the shallowness of racism in America apart from a hard-core full of hatred of whatever comes along. Certainly, the collapse in the market for a specialised information on businesses willing to accept black patch and suggests that many southern businesses opened their doors to black customers once it was physically safe to do so. The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 bought an end to lawlessness in the South principally because black people could now vote. Epstein again:

At its best, and in its original form, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to break the control of the local segregationist forces over their political institutions. First on the list was Title I, which attacked exclusion from voting.

#Africa is turning democratic

https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/660272779644805120

Mises on Nazi socialism

Watch Milton Friedman visit the Berlin Wall @NaomiAKlein

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

David Andolfatto

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Monetary Non-Neutrality

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Reason Magazine

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Coyote Blog

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Thoughts from the North

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Fardels Bear

A History of the Alt-Right

Vincent Geloso

Econ Prof at George Mason University, Economic Historian, Québécois

Bassett, Brash & Hide

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Truth on the Market

Scholarly commentary on law, economics, and more

The Undercover Historian

Beatrice Cherrier's blog

Matua Kahurangi

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Temple of Sociology

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Velvet Glove, Iron Fist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Why Evolution Is True

Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.

NoTricksZone

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Homepaddock

A rural perspective with a blue tint by Ele Ludemann

Kiwiblog

DPF's Kiwiblog - Fomenting Happy Mischief since 2003

The Dangerous Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

The Logical Place

Tim Harding's writings on rationality, informal logic and skepticism

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

The Risk-Monger

Let's examine hard decisions!

Uneasy Money

Commentary on monetary policy in the spirit of R. G. Hawtrey

Barrie Saunders

Thoughts on public policy and the media

Liberty Scott

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Point of Order

Politics and the economy

James Bowden's Blog

A blog (primarily) on Canadian and Commonwealth political history and institutions

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.

Peter Winsley

Economics, and such stuff as dreams are made on

A Venerable Puzzle

"The British constitution has always been puzzling, and always will be." --Queen Elizabeth II

The Antiplanner

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Bet On It

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

History of Sorts

WORLD WAR II, MUSIC, HISTORY, HOLOCAUST

Roger Pielke Jr.

Undisciplined scholar, recovering academic

Offsetting Behaviour

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Conversable Economist

In Hume’s spirit, I will attempt to serve as an ambassador from my world of economics, and help in “finding topics of conversation fit for the entertainment of rational creatures.”

The Victorian Commons

Researching the House of Commons, 1832-1868

The History of Parliament

Articles and research from the History of Parliament Trust

Books & Boots

Reflections on books and art

Legal History Miscellany

Posts on the History of Law, Crime, and Justice

Sex, Drugs and Economics

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

European Royal History

Exploring the Monarchs of Europe

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Marginal REVOLUTION

Small Steps Toward A Much Better World

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.